New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

There’s also nothing in the movie’s story that will teach its audience anything new about, well, the lives of pets: its most conspicuous lift from the Toy Story spirit is that the main characters more or less live for their humans. The meat of the movie lies in what it seems to be saying beneath the rather pedestrian story actions. During the first contentious interchanges between Rex and Duke, I felt a little let down; these scenes go to such pains to establish both characters as unsympathetically as you might dare to in the opening of a non-Pixar family film. The tactic seems to be not just to compete for Katie’s attention, but to subject the other character to total submission and misery. This is not something that existing dogs do as part of dominant behavior, so it falls at the feet of either the story or the theme to explain it. I was nonplussed.

Then it continues, with the introduction of Snowball and the discarded pets (referred to in the film as the Flushed Pets), and Rex and Duke pretending to be human-hating animals in order to be freed and being more or less forcibly recruited, and as Snowball leads them underground with a cry of revolution, something clicked into place for me: in its own way, the movie is exploring the perils of rigid idealism, and the wobbly line that separates pursuing an action to right a wrong from scorching the earth and making everything worse for everyone. I don’t think this is unintentional, or an instance of reading too deeply into incidental action. Everything in the first hour of the film naturally dovetails with the idea that the only reason any adversity is encountered is because the protagonists took the uncompromising route of total resistance or total domination, and logic reasserts itself once that tactic is abandoned.

That’s the implication, anyway. Certainly without this reading, The Secret Life of Pets is not only a less-interesting movie, but a problematic one; it works on the level of basic narrative and is a functional chase film, but the presence of such scorched-earth actions and such readiness to tease the concept of abject violence - this winks at the prospect of death more than most animated films, although there’s nothing on the level of contemporary Pixar here - leaves us with much more of a feeling that the movie lacks any other idea of where to go or how to cap off its premise. The final third of the movie, which contents itself with rudimentary action and forces a rough realignment of every character’s motivation onto the same wavelength for convenience, does not help to dispel this notion.

There are other things about the movie that don’t really work (like Rex and Duke’s relationship to each other, which is never really rounded off or built on beyond the basic points). There are scattershot fragments of world-building all over the place (the movie never seems sure of whether its nonhuman characters have awareness on the level of an animal or a human), and the cast reveals the trap that DreamWorks films fall into all the time of hiring seemingly random celebrity names for vocals, and little distinction or knowledge of voiceover-acting cadence brought to the characters (Brooks is the only one who seems to know the music as well as the words).

As if that’s not enough, there’s an entire out-of-left-field hallucinatory sequence two-thirds of the way through the film, involving hot dogs, that seems to have been cut in from another movie. It’s visually stimulating, but stops the narrative dead in its tracks. None of this matters all that much, though; it’s observations and mild criticisms in the face of a movie that does enough right enough of the time that we’re able to see how much better it could be, with just the slightest little push in this direction or that.

Continued:       1       2